I wasn't elected to SPI's board.
I didn't think I would be once I saw
all
the other candidates
(I nominated before all declared), but it
looks like I would have been elected
with those votes
under some other common systems.

I think
both
first-past-the-post and
alternative vote (also known as instant
run-off voting, reportedly
recommended by Robert's Rules for election-by-mail)
would have resulted in this
same
board:

Nevertheless, well done to the new members.
On one hand, I'm happier, because there's
still two of my top four there and now I've
less required work.
On the other hand, I would have liked a
crack at it myself and both boards are
disappointing because there's no Ian Jackson.

An interesting thing is how many times
I appear in each position in voting
lists:
(5, 1, 2, 1, 9, 6, 6, 3, 3, 4, 2, 9, 37),
or as a bar
chart:

st

nd

rd

th

th

th

th

th

th

th

th

th

th

A fairly acceptable middle-of-road
candidate for most of it,
but then a huge spike at the low end.
Note that a
majority
of voters put me in positions
11-13. There wasn't much warning of
that one coming during hustings. WTF?
There seem to be some 30 or 40 voters who
really dislike me, but didn't tell me that
straight,
preferring to be silent then vote me down.
Are you cowards, or what?

More generally,
is this type of Condorcet ever likely to elect someone who
polarises views, or who many inexplicably
dislike?
What does this say for any plan to use a
Condorcet for debian's social committee?
Could majorities always prevent minority reps?

Finally, as I understand it,
turn-out was 25% of voting members
(not the 25% of SPI members that
some press
reported).
Why was turn-out so low?